The grammaticalization of nominalizers in Japanese and Korean: A contrastive study* Kaoru Horie Tohoku University 1.

Introduction Nominalization in Japanese, as in many other languages, is an intricate phenomenon which exhibits morphosyntactic, semantic and pragmatic dimensions. What makes nominalization in Japanese further intriguing as an object of inquiry are (i) its diachrony, in particular its grammaticalization process (Horie 1997, 1998a; Simpson and Wu 2001; Simpson 2003), and (ii) its typological and areal linguistic properties (cf. Horie 1998b, 2000; Noonan 1997). The present study analyses nominalization in Japanese as a prominent grammatical feature of the language which has evolved since ancient times into its current complex system, shared with other languages of East Asia. Specifically, this study addresses the following two questions: (a) What kind of grammaticalization patterns do Japanese nominalizers exhibit? (b) How do the grammaticalization patterns observed in Japanese contrast with those found in Korean, an East Asian language with similar typological characteristics to Japanese?
*

This study was partly supported by a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science

(#15520242). Special thanks are due to the two anonymous reviewers for their penetrating and very helpful comments. Thanks also go to the participants of the workshop on the grammaticalization of nominalizers in East Asian languages at New Reflections on Grammaticalization 3 (July 2005, Santiago de Compostela, Spain), particularly Foong Ha Yap and Mickey Noonan, and the participants of the 4th Meeting of the Japanese-Korean Contrastive Study Seminar (November 2005, University of Tokyo, Japan), particularly Naoki Ogoshi and Kim Joung-Min, for constructive criticism and comments.

The organization of the paper is as follows. Section 2 is devoted to a brief historical background of nominalization in Japanese. Section 3, in turn, presents an analysis of the grammaticalization of Japanese nominalizers as contrasted with that of Korean nominalizers and it further explores theoretical implications of the crosslinguistic findings. Finally, Section 4 provides the conclusions. 2. Nominalization in Japanese: Historical background One of the noticeable features of Japanese grammar, arguably on a par with, or even more prominent than, well-known grammatical phenomena like topicalization and honorification, is the extensive use of sentential nominalizers. Sentential nominalizers in Japanese appear not only in intra-sentential position, like argument positions, where they mark complement clauses, but also in sentence-final position, either independently or together with the copulas da / dearu / desu to be (plain style / formal style / polite style), where they convey a variety of modal and aspectual meanings. Maynard (1997:113), drawing attention to a Japanese sentence from Abe (1968:6) involving nominalization (cf. (1) below) and its English non-nominalized counterpart (1) from Saunders (1969:6) translation, makes the following insightful observation: There is a distinct preference for nominalized expressions, at least in some Japanese discourse. When original Japanese and English translations are compared, there are many cases where the Japanese writer uses nominal clauses, but the English translator does not [emphasis added]. (1) Modern Japanese Kono ame-ga agare-ba moo sugu natu na no daroo

this rain-NOM

let up-COND

already soon

summer be

NMLZ

would be

(lit.) It would be that, when the rains let up, it will be summer soon. (1) Soon, when the rains let up, it would be summer In fact, the non-nominalized counterpart to (1) is also possible in Japanese, as shown in (1). (1) Modern Japanese Kono ame-ga agareba moo sugu natu daroo

As extensively discussed by many Japanese grammarians (for example, Kuno 1973, among many others), there are several semantic / pragmatic differences between (1) and (1), such as presence (nominalized version) versus absence (non-nominalized version) of a preceding linguistic or non-linguistic context leading the speaker to conclude that summer will come soon. Although I will not go into details regarding such semanticopragmatic differences between sentences with and without nominalization, it is important to note that nominalization by overt sentential nominalizers like no is not a marked rhetorical strategy; on the contrary, it can be extensively observed across genres, both in speech and writing. The preference for nominalization, noted by Maynard (1997), is not an innovation in Modern Japanese, but has its roots in the history of the language. This is briefly discussed in Section 2.1 below. 2.1. Nominalization in Classical Japanese

Some morphosyntactic characteristics of classical Japanese have been completely lost. Notable among them is the distinction between attributive (nominal) predicate form and conclusive (sentence-final) predicate form, as shown in (2a) and (2b), respectively. (2) Classical Japanese a. Oturu fall:ATTR tori bird

a falling bird b. Tori bird otu fall:CONC

a bird falls Besides modifying nouns, as in (2a), attributive (nominal) forms in Classical Japanese, were employed as a means of forming a nominalized clause in argument position (complement clause) or adjunct position (adverbial clause) without any overt nominalizer, as in (3). (3) Classical Japanese [Tori oturu]-wo bird fall:ATTR-ACC mi-tari see-PERF

I saw a bird falling. Attributive forms were also employed in sentence-final position when the sentence showed the emphatic or focus particles zo or namu, or the interrogative particles ya or ka in prefinal position, as in (4).1
1

Examples (4) and (5) are from Iwasaki (2000); glosses are partially modified.

(4)

Classical Japanese Ware-nomi-zo I-only-FP kimi-ni-wa kouru

you-DAT-TOP yearn

It is I alone who yearn for thee. These sentences ending in attributive forms in Classical Japanese served some rhetorical or pragmatic functions and are referred to as kakari musubi bun (focus-concord sentence) in traditional Japanese grammar. Furthermore, attributive forms were employed in sentence-final position even when no focus or interrogative particle was present, as in (5). (5) Classical Japanese Tiru-to mite / aru-beki exist-should mono-wo / thing-PRT ume-no-hana // plum-GEN- flower utate very

scatter-QT see:GER nioi-no / scent-GEN sode-ni

tomare-ru lay-PERF:ATTR

sleeve-LOC

It would have been best simply to watch them scatter now, alas, the scent from the blossoms of the plum still lingers upon my sleeve. Sentences of this kind ending in attributive forms without any overt particle served to convey the writers emotive or affective stance toward the proposition expressed in the sentence, such as vivid recollection of a past event experienced by the writer. These are referred to as rentai syuusi bun (attributive-final sentences) in traditional Japanese grammar.

The existence of examples like (4) and (5) ending in attributive forms suggests that, even in Classical Japanese, it was not uncommon for sentences to end with some kind of nominalization, parallel to nominalized sentences in Modern Japanese, as in (1) above. In fact, sentences ending in attributive forms in Classical Japanese became the norm rather than the exception because of a morphosyntactic change whereby conclusive (sentencefinal) forms (e.g. (2b)) were replaced by attributive forms (e.g. (2a)). Iwasaki (2000:243) notes that [t]he distinction between Conclusive and Attributive forms gradually disappeared, and by the 14th century, the old Conclusive form of some verbs had been replaced by the Attributive form. In other words, the same (Attributive) form now functions both as the Conclusive and as the Attributive [emphasis added]. Attributive forms in Modern Japanese have thus become indistinguishable from conclusive forms, as shown in (2a) and (2b). (2) Modern Japanese a. otiru fall:ATTR a falling bird b. Tori-ga bird-NOM A bird falls. From the perspective of grammaticalization, the replacement of conclusive forms by attributive forms suggests that attributive forms extended their functional domain over time. Some of the functions served by Classical Japanese attributive forms, particularly otiru fall tori bird

complement-marking function (cf. example (3) above) and pragmatic or rhetorical functions (cf. examples (4) and (5)) have thus come to need more overt nominalization marking, that is, overt nominalizers such as no. Section 3 below presents a contrastive analysis of the grammaticalization of overt nominalizers in Japanese and Korean in order to address the questions posed in Section 1 above. 3. Grammaticalization of nominalizers in Japanese and Korean The sentential nominalizing function of Classical Japanese attributive forms, which replaced conclusive forms (cf. Section 2.1 above), has its direct descendent in Modern Japanese, a non-overt nominalization process referred to as direct nominalization (cf. Martin 1975), as in (6). (6) Modern Japanese [Tometa] -ni mo kakawarazu, dete leave:GER it-ta go-PAST

stop:PAST: ATTR-DAT

also concern:NEG

Though I stopped, he departed. This nominalization process is, however, no longer productive in Modern Japanese and is limited to relics (Harris and Campbell 1995), like conventionalized idiomatic expressions, such as -ni mo kakawarazu notwithstanding in example (6) above. Barring such relics, Modern Japanese needs to employ overt sentential nominalizers like no, as in (3), the Modern Japanese counterpart to (3). (3) Modern Japanese [Tori-ga bird-NOM otiru fall:ATTR no]-wo
NMLZ-ACC

mi-ta see-PAST

I saw a bird falling. 3.1. Grammaticalization of overt nominalizers in Japanese Overt sentential nominalizers in Modern Japanese, referred to as keisiki meisi (lit. formal noun) in traditional Japanese grammar, either have their lexical origin not confirmed, which is the case with no (its earliest documented function being that of genitive), or have originated from lexical nouns, as is the case with koto (< matter, event), tokoro (< place), mono (< thing) or wake (< reason). All these overt nominalizers constitute a finite set of forms which are stratified in three groups according to their different degrees of grammaticalization, that is, their degrees of functional extension and semantic generalization: (a) Lexical meaning virtually absent; functional extension widest of all the nominalizers: no (cf. also Horie 1998b; Yap et al. 2004; Nishi 2006). (b) Very general or abstract lexical meaning; rather wide functional extension: mono (< thing), koto (< event, matter), tokoro (< place). (c) More specific lexical meaning; limited functional extension: wake (< reason), yoo (< appearance), moyoo (< design, likelihood), kanzi (< feeling), etc. What seems to be rather special about the grammaticalization of overt nominalizers in Japanese is their multiple grammaticalization pathways. As shown below, these nominalizers have developed a variety of grammatical uses, namely (i) complementizer; (ii) cleft construction marker; (iii) marker of internally headed relative clauses; (iv) conjunction; (v) modal and aspectual constructions marker; and (vi) sentence final particle. In what follows, I will provide illustrative examples for each grammatical use, and specify

which of the three groups of overt nominalizers above have developed the uses in question, since, as already mentioned, not all nominalizers behave alike in terms of their functional extension. (i) Complementizer. Three nominalizers, no in group (a) and koto and tokoro in (b), have evolved into complementizers, as shown in (7a-b) below. (7) Modern Japanese a. [Kodomo-ga child-NOM nai-te cry-GER i-ru exist-PRES no]-o
NMLZ-ACC

mi-ta see-PAST

I saw a child crying. b. [Kodomo-ga child-NOM nai-te cry-GER i-ru exist-PRES tokoro]-o
NMLZ-ACC

mi-ta see-PAST

I saw a child crying. (ii) Cleft construction marker. Only one nominalizer, namely no in group (a), has evolved into a cleft construction marker. Consider example (8). (8) Modern Japanese [Souru-ni tootyakusi-ta] no-wa Seoul- to arrive-PAST
NMLZ-TOP

sanzi three oclock

desi-ta
COP-PAST

It was at three oclock that I arrived in Seoul. (iii) Marker of internally headed relative clauses. This is a particular type of relative clause which, unlike regular externally headed relative clauses, shows its head occurring internal to the clause. Only one nominalizer, no in group (a), has fully developed into a marker of internally headed relative clauses. Another nominalizer, tokoro in group (b),

can serve this function only with a limited number of matrix verbs, like tukamaeru (catch, arrest). Thus, for instance, it would be infelicitous in an example such as (9a). This co-occurrence restriction is absent with no, which could appear in (9b). This suggests that the lexical meaning of tokoro, though fairly abstract, has not been completely bleached. (9) Modern Japanese a. [Tukue-no desk-GEN ue-ni top-LOC ringo-ga apple-NOM aru no]-o exist
NMLZ-ACC

tabe-ta eat-PAST

I ate the apple, which / as it was on the desk. (lit. I ate that an apple was on the desk.) b. [Doroboo-ga heya-kara dete ki-ta thief-NOM room-from come out-PAST tokoro]-o
NMLZ-ACC

tukamae-ta catch-PAST

I caught a thief who / as he was coming out of the room. (iv) Conjunction. The nominalizers no, mono, koto and tokoro have evolved into conjunctions by either coalescing with co-occurring case particles, like nominative ga, accusative o, dative / locative ni and instrumental / locative de, or independently, which is the case of tokoro only. The list of conjunctions includes the following forms: in group (a), no-de (because), no-ni (though), etc.; in group (b), mono-o (though), mono-no (though), koto-de (because), tokoro-de (no matter how, incidentally), tokoro-ga (contrary to ones expectation, however), tokoro (in a situation where, as it happens), etc. Illustrative examples are given in (10a-b). (10) Modern Japanese

a. [Yohukasi sit up

si-ta late-PAST

no-de],
NMZL-INST

neboosi-te oversleep-GER

simat-ta end up-PAST

Because I sat up late, I overslept [and I could not help it]. b. [Kyoositu-ni classroom-to it-ta go-PAST tokoro], kyuukoo
NMLZ

dat-ta
COP-PAST

cancellation

When I went to a classroom, I found [to my surprise] that the class was cancelled. (v) Marker of modal and aspectual constructions. Nominalizers of all three groups (a)-(c) have developed this use by coalescing with the copula da: in group (a), no-da (causality, it is that / because ; cf. Kim and Horie, in press); in group (b), mono-da (moral obligation, past habit), koto-da (moral obligation), tokoro-da (progressive / proximative / immediate past), etc.; finally, in group (c), wake-da (explanation), yoo-da (inferential), moyoo-da (inferential), etc. Consider the examples in (11a-c) below. (11) Modern Japanese a. A, oh ame-ga rain-NOM hut-ta fall-PAST n da

NMLZ COP

(I infer from some evidence that) it rained. (lit. It is that it rained.) b. Yoku mukasi-wa well past-TOP umi-ni oyogi-ni sea-to swim:CONJ-to it-ta go-PAST mono-da
NMLZ-COP

In the past I would go to sea for swimming. c. Ame-ga rain-NOM hut-ta fall-PAST yoo-da
NMLZ-COP

It appears to have rained. (vi) Sentence-final particle (with discourse-pragmatic meaning). Nominalizers of all three groups (a)-(c) have developed this use: (a) no (offering explanation or confirmation); (b) mono (conveying ones opinion), koto (strong advice); (c) wake (offering explanation or justification). (12) Modern Japanese a. Hayaku quickly iku go no
NMLZ

Will you leave early? (lit. Is it that you leave early?) or Please leave soon. (lit. It is that you leave quickly.) b. Sira-nai know-NEG mon
NMLZ

I dont know [I assert this no matter what you say]. c. Asoko-ni ikoo tte
QT

itta wake said

NMLZ

that place-to go:INT

I said why not go there, you know. An interesting question which arises here is whether the grammaticalization patterns (i)-(vi) found in Japanese nominalizers are typologically common or, on the contrary, language-specific. As noted by Heine and Kuteva (2002:326) and other researchers in grammaticalization studies, it is not uncommon for languages to evolve complementizers from lexical nouns with generic meaning like thing. However, this grammaticalization pathway does not straightforwardly apply to Japanese, as the most relevant nominalizer

mono (< thing) has not developed the complementizer function. Instead, Japanese shows some grammaticalization pathways not widely documented in other languages, like place > complementizer (see 7b) and place > conjunction (see 10b), which apply to the nominalizer tokoro, or thing > sentence-final particle (see 12b), which applies to the nominalizer mono (cf. also Horie and Sassa 2000). Moreover, it is not uncommon for some languages, particularly those in East Asia, to exhibit a grammaticalization pathway from nominalizers to pragmatic markers (cf. Yap et al. 2004). In fact, as shown in the overview of nominalizers in East Asian languages by Yap and Matthews (this volume), many of the pathways documented in Japanese have also been observed in other languages in the same region, which points to the areal nature of versatile nominalization. However, it appears that the multiple grammaticalization pathways (i)-(vi) observed in Japanese are not necessarily common even in East Asian languages where such phenomena would be expected. In order to correctly assess the grammaticalization pathways of Japanese nominalizers, I will compare them with their Korean counterparts, a language known to exhibit remarkable structural similarity to Japanese relative to other languages (cf. Horie 1998a, 1998b, 2000, 2002a, 2002b, 2003; Horie and Taira 2002). 3.2. Grammaticalization of overt nominalizers in Korean Similarly to Japanese, Korean has a group of nominalizers (or dependent nouns) historically derived from lexical nouns (cf. Rhee this volume). Like the Japanese nominalizers presented in Section 3.1 above, the membership of Korean nominalizers is stratified in terms of differential degrees of grammaticalization, that is degrees of

functional extension and semantic generalization. One noticeable difference between the overt nominalizers in Korean and their Japanese counterparts is that Korean does not appear to have any nominalizer which has reached the same stage of grammaticalization as Japanese no (i.e. lexical meaning virtually absent, functional extension widest of all the nominalizers). The stratification of overt Korean nominalizers is then restricted to groups (b) and (c): (b) very general or abstract lexical meaning and rather wide functional extension: kes (< thing); (c) more specific lexical meaning and / or limited functional extension: tey (< place), il (< event, matter), cek (< event), moyang (< appearance), ttaymwun (< reason), etc. Let us consider now the different grammatical uses of overt nominalizers in Korean. (i) Complementizer. Only one Korean nominalizer, namely kes, from group (b), has evolved into a complementizer (cf. example (13) below). (13) Korean [Phiano-lul piano-ACC chi-nun play-ATTR:PRES kes]-ul
NMLZ-ACC

tul-ess-ta hear-PAST-DECL

I heard him playing the piano. (ii) Cleft construction marker. Once again, only the nominalizer kes has evolved into the marker of cleft constructions, as shown in (14). (14) Korean [Chayksang desk wi-ey top-LOC sakwa-ka apple-NOM iss-nun exist-ATTR:PRES kes]-ul
NMLZ-TOP

It is an apple that is on the desk.

However, kes is not felicitous in a sentence parallel to (8) in Japanese. (8) Korean ? [Taroo-ka
NOM

sewul-ey tochakha-n Seoul-to arrive-ATTR:PAST

kes]-un
NMLZ-TOP

seysi

i-ess-ta

three oclock be-PAST-DECL

It was three oclock that I arrived in Seoul. (Intended meaning: It was at three oclock that I arrived in Seoul.)

This indicates that Korean kes has not reached the same stage of semantic generalization as its closest counterpart no in Japanese. Hence, its remaining lexical meaning prevents kes from serving as a generalized cleft construction marker unlike Japanese no or English that. (iii) Marker of internally headed relative clauses. Unlike its Japanese counterpart no in example (9) above, kes is not fully acceptable in this construction (9), as was the case with the low acceptability of its use in cleft constructions in (8).2 (9) Korean ? [Chayksang desk wi-ey sakwa-ka iss-nun kes]-ul
NMLZ-ACC

mek-ess-ta eat-PAST-DECL

top-LOC apple-NOM exist-ATTR:PRES

I ate the apple, which / as it was on the desk. (lit. I ate that an apple was on the desk.) (iv) Conjunction. Unlike their Japanese counterparts, not many Korean overt nominalizers with lexical origin have evolved into conjunctions, either by coalescing with cooccurring morphemes or independently. A possible exception is tey ( < place), from
2

Cf. Horie (1993) for a more extensive analysis.

group (c), which has formed conjunctions by coalescing with the present attributive ending -nun, as in nuntey (but, because, as, etc.), or with the attributive form of the stative predicate kuleta (to be so), giving rise to kulentey (however), illustrated in example (15) below. (15) Korean Kulentey, imi
NMLZ

syatha-ka

tathye

iss-ess-ta

already shutter-NOM

be closed exist-PAST-DECL

But the shutter (of the bank) was already closed. (v) Marker of modal and aspectual constructions. Like their Japanese counterparts, many Korean nominalizers have evolved this use by coalescing with the copula ita, such as kes-ita (explanation, inference, suggestion), from group (b), or moyang-ita (inferential), cham-ita (proximative), etc., from group (c). Consider the illustrative examples in (16ab) below. (16) Korean a. Hoyuy-ey chamsekha-l kes-ita
NMLZ-COP:DECL

meeting-to attend-ATTR:FUT He will attend the meeting. b. Kim sensayngnim-kkey professor-DAT:HON

cenhwaha-l telephone-ATTR:FUT

cham-i-ess-e-yo verge-COP-PAST-CONJ-SFP:POL

I was just about to call Professor Kim. (vi) Sentence-final particle (with discourse-pragmatic meaning). Some Korean nominalizers with lexical origin have evolved into sentence-final particles, among them

the following: kel (< kes + lul NMLZ-ACC) and nuntey (< nun + tey Attributive Present ending + place), from groups (b) and (c) respectively, as in (17a-b). (17) Korean a. Ne-to you-also kathi together ka-l go-ATTR:FUT kel
NMLZ

You should have gone with them. b. Ku that chayk-un book-TOP yeki here eps-nuntey-yo not exist- NMLZ:POL

We dont carry that book here (I am sorry to say). The crosslinguistic comparison between Japanese nominalizers and their Korean counterparts presented above has revealed that some pathways found in Japanese are not attested in Korean or are attested to a lesser extent. Conversely, no grammaticalization pathway has been observed only with Korean nominalizers. More specifically, the crosslinguistic comparison between the Japanese nominalizer no and its Korean counterpart kes presented in this section has shown that, in spite of the extensive parallelism between the two forms, kes has not been as fully grammaticalized as no, since some pathways found with Japanese no are not manifested at all for Korean kes, or manifested only to a lesser extent. Though less noteworthy than the contrast between no and kes, another pair of nominalizers, tokoro and tey, both originating as lexical nouns meaning place, manifest a similar con-

trast to that between no and kes in terms of their degree of grammaticalization.3 Japanese tokoro has developed more grammatical uses (complementizer, internally headed relative clause marker, conjunction and marker of aspectual constructions) than Korean tey, which can only function as a conjunction and a sentence-final particle. Table 1 summarizes the crosslinguistic comparison of the grammaticalization of Japanese and Korean nominalizers discussed in this paper:

Table 1. Grammaticalization of Japanese and Korean Nominalizers Contrasted Japanese (i) Complementizer no, koto, tokoro no no, tokoro no, mono, koto, tokoro no, mono, koto, tokoro etc. no, mono etc. Korean kes (kes) (kes) tey kes etc. kes, tey etc.

(ii) Cleft construction (iii) Internally headed relative clause (iv) Conjunction (v) Modal and aspectual constructions (vi) (Utterance) final particles

(( ) indicates that the item in question not having been fully grammaticalized in that function)

3.3. Theoretical implications of the Japanese-Korean contrast The grammaticalization patterns of overt nominalizers presented in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, particularly those exhibited by the Japanese nominalizers no and tokoro and their Korean
3

See Horie and Sassa (2000) for a more extensive analysis of the grammaticalization pathways of tokoro and

tey.

counterparts kes and tey, suggest that the former instantiate a higher degree of grammaticalization than the latter. This contrast leads to an interesting theoretical question, inspired by Bybee et al. (1994), regarding the degree of grammaticalization in languages of a similar morphological type. Bybee et al. (1994:118) propose the following hypothesis:
The existence of (morphological) types gives evidence for typological constraints on grammaticization: in some languages grammaticization does not proceed as far as it does in others. In particular, isolating languages do not carry grammaticization as far as fusional or agglutinating languages do. Not only do they not affix, they also do not have grams with meaning as abstract as synthetic languages do. The stability of certain isolating languages, such as Chinese, over time further attests to typological constraints on grammaticization.

Bybee et al.s (1994) hypothesis makes it possible to predict that grammaticalization in an isolating language like Chinese does not proceed as far as in an agglutinating language like Japanese. The contrast between the grammaticalization patterns of Japanese and Korean nominalizers shown here suggests that the rate at which grammaticalization proceeds may vary even between languages of the same morphological type. Crucially, the tendency for Korean to exhibit a lesser degree of grammaticalization than Japanese is not only manifested in the grammaticalization of overt nominalizers, as seen in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, but is also observable in the grammaticalization of verbal elements, such as periphrastic aspectual constructions. According to Bybee et al. (1994), grammatical morphemes (or grams in their terminology) encoding tense, aspect and modality do not evolve randomly from any lexical item, but manifest common grammaticalization pathways crosslinguistically from lexical items with specific lexical meaning, among them the following: (i) be / have > resultative > anterior (= perfect) >

perfective / simple past; (ii) finish > completive > anterior (= perfect) > perfective / simple past. The pathway in (i) is attested in both Japanese and Korean:4 (a) Japanese: -te ari (conjunctive affix-be (existential) verb) > -tari (affix: resultative / perfect) > -ta (affix: perfective / simple past). (b) Korean: -e is- / -e isi- (conjunctive affix-be (existential) verb) > -eys- / -eysi- (affix: resultative / perfective) > -ess- (affix: perfective / simple past). The affixes -ta and -ess- have already reached the final stage of the pathway since they can encode simple past tense. Japanese and Korean also have less grammaticalized periphrastic aspectual constructions whose constituent lexical items (in this case verbs) have not yet been semantically bleached completely. This is the case with -te iru in Japanese and its Korean counterparts -ko issta and -a / -e issta, as well as with -te simau in Japanese and its Korean counterpart -a / e pelita:5 (a) Japanese: -te iru (progressive / resultative / perfect), -te simau (completive)6 (b) Korean: -ko issta (progressive), -a / e issta (resultative), -a / e pelita (completive) These periphrastic aspectual constructions still have formally identifiable lexical constituents, namely the be-verbs iru and issta and the put away / finish-verbs simau

Constituent lexical item indicated by bold type. The verbs included in the periphrastic aspectual constructions, in bold type, are given in citation form. The completive aspect, a less familiar term, refers to the aspectual meaning to do something thoroughly and

to completion (Bybee et al. 1994:318).

and pelita, and have not reached the final stage of grammaticalization, unlike -ta and -essabove. What is interesting from a comparative perspective is that, parallel to the contrast in grammaticalization patterns between Japanese no / tokoro and Korean kes / tey,

Japanese aspectual constructions attest a more advanced stage of grammaticalization than their Korean counterparts. Japanese -te iru is known to have developed multiple aspectual meanings including progressive (18), resultative (19a) and perfect (anterior in Bybee et al.s (1994) terminology) (19b), partially according with the aforementioned grammaticalization pathway: be / have > resultative > anterior (= perfect) > perfective / simple past. (18) Modern Japanese Dareka-ga someone-NOM nokku si-te ru yo knock-PROG
SFP

Someone is knocking on the door. (19) Modern Japanese a. Titi-wa father-TOP sono T syatu-o that T shirt-ACC ki-te iru / wear-RES

My father wears that T-shirt. b. Titi-wa nando ka sono that T syatu-o T shirt-ACC ki-te iru wear-PERF

father-TOP several times

My father has worn that T-shirt several times.

In contrast, Korean does not have a single periphrastic aspectual construction covering the multiple meanings expressible by -te iru. A dynamic progressive meaning is encoded by ko issta (20) and a stative resultative meaning is encoded by -a / -e issta (21), the latter cooccurring only with a limited number of intransitive verbs (Chang 1996:124). (20) Korean Bongsik-i Bongsik-NOM cikum now talli-ko iss-ta run-PROG-DECL

Bongsik is now running. (21) Korean Bongsik-i Bongsik-NOM uyca-ey chair-LOC anc-a iss-ta sit-RES-DECL

Bongsik is seated in a chair. However, neither of these periphrastic constructions in Korean has developed a general perfect meaning similar to that expressed by Japanese -te iru, which suggests that -te iru has reached a more advanced stage of grammaticalization than its Korean counterparts. Interestingly, as extensively discussed by Wako et al. (2003), Korean -ko issta has started to take on perfective aspectual meaning when it co-occurs with reporting verbs, as in (22), and attainment verbs, as in (23), particularly in newspaper articles and editorials. (22) Korean Kath-un same-ATTR eps-nun kwunin chwulsin-ulo soldier background-as sai-i-n amithici pwucangkwan-kwa twul-to two-also

Armitage vice-secretary-with

khollin phawel kwukmwucangkwan-un

not exist-ATTR pimanglok-eyse memoire-LOC cek-ko iss-ta note-PERFDECL

relation-COP-ATTR ku-ey tayha-n he-regarding-ATTR

Collin

Powell State Secretary -TOP ilehkey like this

chesinsang-ul first impression-ACC

In his memoir, State Secretary Collin Powell has noted his first impression of ViceSecretary Armitage, also an ex-soldier whose presence is unlike any other to him, like this. (from Wako et al. 2003: 69, partially modified) (23) Korean Yecapaksa-uy female PhD-GEN twupay-ey twice-to yenphyengkyun cungkayul-nun annual average increase rate-TOP namcapaksa-uy male PhD-GEN

talha-ko iss-ta reach-PERF-DECL

The annual average increase in the number of female Ph.D. recipients has almost doubled [lit. has reached the double size of] that of male Ph.D. recipients. (from Wako et al. 2003: 69, partially modified) A grammaticalization pathway from progressive to perfect has not been reported in grammaticalization literature and deserves further research. For our present concern, however, it suffices to note that such genre-sensitive perfective meaning of -ko issta is at best in its incipient stage of grammaticalization and has not yet generalized to other semantic classes of verbs and genres, unlike -te iru in Japanese.

Finally, completive aspectual constructions in Japanese and Korean, -te simau and -a / -e pelita respectively, show a similar contrast in terms of their degree of grammaticalization. As shown in the Table 2 below from Strauss and Sohn (1998:221, partially modified), -te simau has reached a more advanced stage of grammaticalization than -a / -e pelita by having evolved from a lexical verb meaning finish, put away through the stage of a (completive) aspectual marker into the stage of an emphatic or affective marker. The latter stage, characterized by formal reduction (-te simau > -tyau), can further lead to the loss of such emphatic or affective meaning. In contrast, Korean -a / -e pelita has not advanced to these latter developmental stages. Table 2. Grammaticalization paths for Japanese -te simau and Korean -a / -e pelita
I Physical domain simau > put away II Aspectual marker -te simau > III Emphatic or affective marker -te simau / -tyau (semiproductive) pelita > throw away -a / -e pelita > -a / -e pelita (rare) > limited cases (not productive) IV Light or no emphasis > -tyau

The two case studies of grammaticalization of periphrastic aspectual constructions in Japanese and Korean presented in this section demonstrate that, similarly to the case of overt nominalizers discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 above, periphrastic aspectual constructions also show a tendency for grammaticalization to proceed more extensively in Japanese than in Korean. This suggests that the degree or rate of grammaticalization can

differ between languages of a similar morphological type and the differing grammaticalization patterns are manifested across different grammatical domains. 4. Conclusion This paper has presented an analysis of the grammaticalization patterns of sentential nominalizers in Japanese as contrasted with those of Korean sentential nominalizers. In spite of the morphosyntactic typological similarities between the two languages, a striking crosslinguistic contrast emerges in that Japanese nominalizers attest a more advanced stage of grammaticalization than their Korean counterparts. This suggests that the degree of grammaticalization can vary even between languages of a similar morphological type. Furthermore, this paper also relates the contrastive grammaticalization patterns observed in the nominal domain to a similar contrast observed in the verbal domain, namely the grammaticalization patterns of periphrastic aspectual constructions in Japanese and Korean. It has thus shown that the contrastive patterns of grammaticalization between these two languages are observable across different grammatical domains. Whence such a crosslinguistic contrast in grammaticalization patterns comes is next in our agenda. Abbreviations:
ACC ATTR CONC COND CONJ COP

Accusative Attributive Conclusive Conditional Conjunctive Copula

DAT DECL FP FUT GEN GER

Dative Declarative Focus Particle Future Genitive Gerundive

HON INT INST LOC NEG NOM NMLZ PAST PERF

Honorific Intention Instrumental Locative Negative Nominative Nominalizer Past Perfect

POL PRES PROG PRT QT RES SFP TOP

Polite Present Progressive Particle Quotative Resultative Sentence Final Particle Topic

References Abe, Kooboo. 1968. Tanin no Kao [Face of another]. Tokyo: Sintyoosya. Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chang, Suk-Jin. 1996. Korean. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Harris, Alice C. and Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horie, Kaoru. 1993. Internally headed relative clauses in Korean and Japanese: Where do the differences come from? In Susumu Kuno, John Whitman and Young-Se Kang (eds.), Harvard studies in Korean linguistics 5. Seoul: Hanshin Publishers: 449-458.

Horie, Kaoru. 1997. Three types of nominalization in Modern Japanese: No, koto and zero. Linguistics 35/5: 879-894. Horie, Kaoru. 1998a. Functional duality of case-marking particles in Japanese and its implications for grammaticalization: A contrastive study with Korean. In David Silva (ed.), Japanese / Korean linguistics 8. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI): 147-159. Horie, Kaoru. 1998b. On the polyfunctionality of the Japanese particle no: From the perspectives of ontology and grammaticalization. In Toshio Ohori (ed.), Studies in Japanese grammaticalization: Cognitive and discourse perspectives. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers: 169-192. Horie, Kaoru. 2000. Complementation in Japanese and Korean: A contrastive and cognitive linguistic approach. In Kaoru Horie (ed.), Complementation: Cognitive and functional perspectives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 11-31. Horie, Kaoru. 2002a. Verbal nouns in Japanese and Korean: Cognitive typological implications. In Kuniyoshi Kataoka and Sachi Ide (eds.), Culture, interaction, language. Tokyo: Hituzi Syoboo: 77-101. Horie, Kaoru. 2002b. A comparative typological account of Japanese and Korean morphosyntactic contrasts. Eonehag 32: 9-32. Horie, Kaoru. 2003. What cognitive linguistics can reveal about complementation in nonIE languages: Case studies from Japanese and Korean. In Eugene H. Casad and Gary B. Palmer (eds.), Cognitive linguistics and non-Indo European languages. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 363-388.

Horie, Kaoru and Yuko Sassa. 2000. From place to space to discourse: A contrastive linguistic analysis of tokoro and tey. In Mineharu Nakayama and Charles J. Quinn (eds.), Japanese / Korean linguistics 9. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI): 181-194. Horie, Kaoru and Kaori Taira. 2002. Where Korean and Japanese differ: Modality vs. discourse modality. In Noriko Akatsuka and Susan Strauss (eds.), Japanese / Korean linguistics 10. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI): 178-191. Iwasaki, Shoichi. 2000. Suppressed assertion and the functions of the final-attributive in prose and poetry of Heian Japanese. In Susan C. Herring, Pieter van Reenen and Lene Schsler (eds.), Textual parameters in older languages. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 237-272. Kim, Joungmin and Kaoru Horie. In press. Intersubjectification and textual functions of Japanese noda and Korean kes-ita. In Takubo, Yukinori (ed.) Japanese/Korean Linguistics 16. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI). Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge: MIT Press. Martin, Samuel E. 1975. A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven: Yale University Press. Maynard, Senko K. 1997. Japanese communication: Language and thought in context. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Nishi, Yumiko. 2006. The emergence of the complementizer no in Japanese revisited: The dual path approach. In Timothy Vance (ed.), Japanese / Korean linguistics 14. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI): 127-137. Noonan, Michael. 1997. Versatile nominalizations. In Joan L. Bybee, John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 373-394. Rhee, Seongha. This volume. On the rise and fall of Korean nominalizers. Saunders, Ernest Dale. 1969. Face of another. New York: Weidenfeld and N. Simpson, Andrew. 2003. On the re-analysis of nominalizers in Chinese, Japanese and Korean. In Yen-hui Audrey Li and Andrew Simpson (eds.), Functional structure(s), form and interpretation. London: Curzon: 131-160. Simpson, Andrew and Zoe Wu. 2001. The grammaticalization of formal nouns and nominalizers in Chinese, Japanese and Korean. In Thomas E. McAuley (ed.), Language change in East Asia. London: Curzon: 250-283. Strauss, Susan and Sung-Ock Sohn. 1998. Grammaticalization, aspect and emotion: The case of Japanese te shimau and Korean a/e pelita. In David Silva (ed.), Japanese / Korean linguistics 8. Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI): 217230. Wako, Masakazu, Shigeru Sato and Kaoru Horie. 2003. From progressive to perfect: A corpus-based study of the perfect meaning of the Korean progressive form -ko iss. In William McClure (ed.), Japanese / Korean linguistics 12. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI): 64-74.

Yap, Foong Ha, Stephen Matthews and Kaoru Horie. 2004. From pronominalizer to pragmatic marker: Implications for unidirectionality from a crosslinguistic perspective. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde and Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 59). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 137-168. Yap, Foong Ha and Stephen Matthews. This volume. The development of nominalizers in East Asian languages.